PUC judge predicts rough road ahead for Cal Am water project

SAN FRANCISCO — A state Public Utilities Commission judge came right out and said Wednesday what many on the Peninsula already believed: There's no easy road for the new Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project.

During the first public hearing on California American Water's proposed project at PUC headquarters in San Francisco, administrative law judge Gary Weatherford specifically acknowledged the variety and complexity of challenges the proposal faces and that must be addressed during the next several months of review.

That reality, Weatherford said, underscores the need for a thorough consideration of the project, pimples and all, and may even require significant revision.

Finding the best, most cost-efficient project must be done right this time, he said, especially with the 2017 deadline for the state-ordered cutback in pumping from the Carmel River looming ever closer.

"Nothing could be worse than heading down a path toward the (state's deadline) only to find we have a project that can't be recommended," Weatherford said, adding that the well-worn adage, "Measure twice, cut once," was especially apropos.

Cal Am's three-pronged proposal — combining a desalination plant, groundwater recharge and aquifer storage and recovery in partnership with the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District — has taken much criticism since it was unveiled in April.

Critics have assailed the project's reliance on a Cal Am-owned desal plant — without a public agency partner — that goes against the county's public ownership ordinance. They have raised water rights questions connected to intake water from a Salinas Valley basin, groundwater replenishment and brine disposal.

The proposal has been criticized for a lack of adequate environmental review and for ignoring other desal alternatives already in the works.

Weatherford noted the sheer number of official parties to the proceeding and the potential complexity of dealing with all of their filings on the project, and predicted "far more work than normal in this proceeding."

The judge on Wednesday agreed to add three more official parties to the proceeding, including the Latino Water Use Coalition of the Monterey Peninsula represented by Carlos Ramos, making it more than a dozen agencies and organizations that can formally participate in the PUC's project review.

Cal Am spokeswoman Catherine Bowie said company officials were pleased with the initial hearing and that it pointed out the amount of review to be done in a short amount of time. Bowie lauded the number of agencies participating in the proceeding and suggested it would lead to more robust public participation.

In response to entreaties from Marina Coast Water District attorney Mark Fogelman, Weatherford made it clear he would not address any issues related to the failed regional desal project during the proceeding. He noted that he had also been assigned to resolve that proceeding, which remains open.

Early in the hearing, Weatherford suggested he would lean toward focusing the PUC review on the proposal as presented by Cal Am and not on a parallel track with alternatives. But he left the door open to the possibility that alternatives could be considered as part of environmental review or during evidentiary hearings later this year.

Attorney Russell McGlothlin, representing the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority, told the judge the authority plans to conduct its own analysis of Cal Am's proposal and the desal alternatives in an effort to ensure Peninsula ratepayers get the most feasible and cost-effective project. He suggested the PUC should do the same.

Weatherford wrapped up the hearing with a discussion of scheduling for the project review. He distributed a proposed schedule that set deadlines for responding to critical legal issues and Cal Am's request for early consideration of slant test wells to gauge the proposed intake water source for the desal plant, and set up a late July workshop to review the project's technical issues.

The schedule would allow a few more months for review of testimony on the project and related issues than initially proposed by Cal Am, but anticipates a proposed decision from Weatherford by January, which is actually quicker than Cal Am's proposal.

The parties have until June 15 to respond to Weatherford's proposed schedule and submit their own suggestions.

Public participation hearings would be held in September, under the judge's schedule, and would likely be conducted on the Peninsula.

Organizations that are part of the PUC's proceeding on the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project:

· California American Water, Division of Ratepayer Advocates, Monterey County, Marina Coast Water District, Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control District, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority, LandWatch, WaterPlus, Salinas Valley Water Coalition, Coalition of Peninsula Businesses, City of Pacific Grove, Citizens for Public Water, Latino Water Coalition, Planning and Conservation League, and Public Trust Alliance. (Surfrider Foundation is expected to apply for party status.)